On 02/25/2012 09:18 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/25/12 7:19 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 02/24/2012 08:14 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 2/24/12 1:13 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>> In my mind, contract code belongs in the function signature, because
>>>> they document how the function expects to be called, and what it
>>>> guarantees in return. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that
>>>> contracts
>>>> would be hidden from the user of the library. Sorta defeats the
>>>> purpose,
>>>> since how is the user supposed to know what the function expects? Rely
>>>> on documentation, perhaps, but docs aren't as reliable as actual
>>>> contract code.
>>>>>> Yah, and that's why we managed, with great implementation effort, to
>>> allow contract checks in interfaces. The concept has still to take off
>>> though.
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>> 'In' contracts are hardly usable at all at the moment, because they are
>> not inherited by default.
>> I thought that was fixed. Is there a bug report on it? Thanks!
>> Andrei
This is the bug report:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
( Furthermore, there is an issue with the design:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7584 )